The reality is that it will be like death from a thousand cuts as businesses gradually move out of the country and the dawning realisation that this 'global' trading idea isn't all that.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Strange that nobody is talking about the 53 free trade agreements that the UK is signed up to as a member of the EU which will also end when Brexit kicks in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
That's because the UK will negotiate its own amazing trade agreements with these countries when they no longer have the pesky EU holding them back, countries that they wouldn't be able to trade with if they had to stay in the EU. Countries like the US.. no wait, they have one pending with the EU. Cana.. no, they do too. Err.. Japa.. no, they just got one with the EU too.
Guess Russia and China will be the UK's new best mates, then.
One of the reasons it didnt happen is because the Bank of England (unlike the government) actually had a plan to mitigate disruption caused by Brexit and actually did something to help after the referendum.
It's been pointed out dozens of times here, but facts are always ignored by Brexiters.
Here's Brain of Britain Craig Mackinlay, a Conservative Brexiter, today at the Commons Brexit Committee:
If am making a pen for sale in the UK, why should I have to comply with an EU standard. It could make it harder to sell my pen in the US, where standards are slightly different.
Words fail me.
Are they following UK, EU, US or none of the aforementioned standards for their pens for sale in the UK?
The most popular pen in the UK is french so I'd say the EU.
Im no Brexiteer but I stand by my ascertion a while back. The best deal Britian will ever get with the EU is the one they have right now, membership. Beyond that I think Britian will be very lucky if they get out of membership with a deal that is worth being tied to in the long run. I honestly believe they voted out so just do it at this stage. Either that or just call the whole thing off. Btw pens is a very lucrative industry often overlooked by major investors...
The whole thing has become a long drawn owut shambles that it never had to be, and the lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum. What May is doing reeks of incompetency. If a project was being run like that in most business the exec committee would pull the plug. Its absolute chaos and its clear to everyone but May and the cabinet that any deal is now a dead horse.
You would have to decide case by case, but you couldn't complain if you were thrown out of a party for voting against it. I don't belong to a political party any more myself, because to belong would involve too much compromise for me, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask.
If you have been an active member of a party, you probably know that they make shits up as they go and people rarely agree with each others. Also when you join, no one ask you to follow a certain political line, so not only you could but you should complain if they throw you out.
Yes the best possible deal by far is what they currently have. In a company environment the whole cabinet and the PM would have been thrown out for incompetence long ago. It's now chaos and desperation. It's a choice between stopping the farce, which will be humiliating for the country or crashing out which will be a disaster. But the government will choose a disaster.
Your original question was how an MP should vote, and my 'being thrown out' was only referring to that.
I then moved on to how I feel about being a member of a party, I wasn't suggesting anybody threw me out of one, just how I feel personally. Sorry for the confusion.
Just wanted your opinion in general terms.
Do voters vote for their MP or the party they want to see in government which may not necessarily mean the same thing? If they are voting just for the government their MP could be anyone. Just thinking aloud.
It wasn't my question and I just gave my opinion on your answer. The way party works at local or national level put them in a very weak position if they try to throw someone out because he didn't vote like they say, particularly when it's not even his job to do that, he is supposed to represent voters and their hypothetical views.
100% right. And Joe Public doesnt want to admit they got it wrong either. My future mother in law voted leave and was almost proud of it back in 2016. Brexit is no longer a conversation that is allowed to be discussed in front of her...
I'm with you. I guess people are different, but I've voted against the candidate from my own party in the past, for different reasons. I do think it's important to be able to vote for an individual, so when it comes to PR for example, I could support single transferable voting, but not a list system. Just my own opinion.
TBF I trust her above everyone else to do this.
History will judge her kindly, riding a unicycle between volcanoes isn't easy. Terrible speaker but astute behind that.
Not sure if serious?
She was an abject Home Secretary, and is an even worse PM.
Abject Home Secretary who smashed the record for longest office?
Hunt was the longest serving Health Secretary, do you think he did a good job too?
Gareth Barry has more EPL appearances than Ryan Giggs. Your point is invalid.
Ah, that will be why the brexit's going ahead then. I'm a bit surprised you approve but I admire your principles.
So you would support the rules of the democracy that any change needs to be agreed and voted on when the outcome is agreed?
I honestly don't know. Where are these rules? What's being agreed and by whom? Does anyone need to vote on the price of toast in the canteen? No idea mate, pass.
I was only talking about the representation not how they actually vote. They are supposed to advise people and that's generally where they fail because they either don't care or don't know better.
Edit: And they are supposed to take decisions in the best interest of the people that they represent.
Key point. People were happy for them to make any decision on their behalf without giving a feck in the past
Regardless. A good number MP’s have not got convictions but need convicting.
The pen is mightier when sold abroad.
Fair enough. I thought the main way MPs represented people was by voting but I get things wrong. I suppose they do a lot of work taking up individual's problems with government and local government bodies and quangos and the like as well. That side of their work probably doesn't get too much publicity though.
The Tories are mired in corruption and Saint Corbyn waves it through. feck sakes.
I apologize for my persistence I keeping forgetting points. The MP of your area represents every single person in that area, he represents every single companies and associations, his decisions are supposed to be for the benefits of all the people in his area and it doesn't matter whether they voted for him or not. He isn't supposed to vote for his party or himself but for his constituents.
Now to be honest your view isn't wrong at all, to a large part it seems that MPs are simple pawns that votes like they are told whether it is by their party or by following what they believe will allow them to keep their constituency but we need to remember that this is not what they are supposed to do, they are supposed to make our voices heard and protect our interests as citizens, even if it means upsetting us from time to time.
Inappropriate Content
Don't worry, Dominic Raaaaaaab said there will be 'adequate' amounts of food.
All this because white Brits can't handle anyone that doesn't look like them
All this because white Brits can't handle anyone that doesn't look like them
In practice an MP can't represent everyone equally though. If you vote for abortion you will very much go against the wishes of half the population. Vote against it and you'll upset the other half. In practice members must make their decisions on a case by case basis, hopefully taking their constituents views into account. Sometimes they won't of course, otherwise we'd still be hanging people. As for parties, isn't that a case of people with reasonably like minds banding together to get things done? Wouldn't the floor of the house just be chaos without some form of organisation .. you vote for me on this and I'll vote for you on that, the start of a party as it were?
I'm just musing JP, I suspect someone who has studied politics as a degree or higher would shoot that all down. Maybe even if they haven't
Just my own humble thoughts, no more.How much of a generalisation do you think this is?
Miniscule
Then you should probably take a look at the population of the UK, the percentage of people who voted to leave, and some of the primary research into ethnicity of leave voters. You might find then that some white British voted to leave but not as many that either voted to remain or didn't vote and also, for example, that there was a strong British Asian vote for leave as well as differing levels of leave voting amongst other BAME peoples.
This of course doesn't take into account people's stated reasons for voting leave other than matters of immigration (or outright racism as you're suggesting)
In a nustshell while there's no doubt that the white British racists will have formed part of the leave vote you're peddling a massive generalsiation that doesn't reflect a far more nuanced reality.
In practice an MP can't represent everyone equally though. If you vote for abortion you will very much go against the wishes of half the population. Vote against it and you'll upset the other half. In practice members must make their decisions on a case by case basis, hopefully taking their constituents views into account. Sometimes they won't of course, otherwise we'd still be hanging people. As for parties, isn't that a case of people with reasonably like minds banding together to get things done? Wouldn't the floor of the house just be chaos without some form of organisation .. you vote for me on this and I'll vote for you on that, the start of a party as it were?
I'm just musing JP, I suspect someone who has studied politics as a degree or higher would shoot that all down. Maybe even if they haven't
Social subjects are complicated, typically it's the type of decision that can and should be decided by direct and universal suffrage like for death penalty. But these subjects aren't that common, most of the time you will have decisions that concern economy, environment, public accounting or safety these are subjects that you take for common interests and the questions/answers aren't that straightforward, so you can't ask for a binary answer.
As for political parties they are generally a mess, people that have nothing to do with each other are on the same side because that's where they had enough room to climb the ladder, you will have people with completely opposing ideas on key points too, they might share common philosophies but it's true for most mainstream parties between them too. A thing that is overlooked is that very often the policies do not come from MPs or the voters but from think tanks made of people that do not have the decency to expose themselves.
And the decisions from an MP can be the wrong one but they need to be taken for the right reason.
White British racists formed the majority of the leave vote. Of that there is no doubt